[allovertown]

Couldn't they just make demonstration of the capability to begin construction on a replacement building part of the process to even receive a demolition permit in the first place? Make them go through zoning and that whole process for the replacement building and make them secure financing before the demolition permit is handed out. This way before they're even given permission to demo the building, you've ensured that everything is ready to go in regards to constriction of the replacement building.

Then if taxing a property is issue with Harrisburg, if a project fails to begin constriction on the date they agreed to in order to receive their demolition permit, couldn't the city just cite them like they would a building that has broken windows or any other code violation?

I know plenty on this board are involved in the industry. Does anyone have any insight on how much of a burden this would truly be? In my mind it would definitely affect situations where someone wants to just demo a building, float a plan and then flip the project to someone else. Also I guess cases like the jeweler's row project where the longer demolition is delayed, the more likely demolition could be halted through some type of appeal to the historic preservation of a building.

But for the most part, if a developer 100% intends to start construction after demoing the building anyway, how much would it really hurt them to change the order of the process of how they proceed with demolition?